Why Republicans lost, not Romney

[KingOrfeo]

Romney had the whole GOP on his side. He ran against an incumbent targeted for unprecedented hatred throughout his first term -- not even Nixon or Carter or W came in for such abuse! -- and burdened by an economy still in recession. He ran entirely on the Republican message -- necessitating much flip-flopping, since there is more than one Republican message, but he never colored outside the Party lines. He came nearer to beating Obama than Santorum, Gingrich or Paul could conceivably have done. The American people simply did not want any Republican in the WH this year.

 

[KyleW]

I've been reading articles about how they lost because Mitt was too moderate.

Tack further right. 2016 will appreciate it.

 

[richard_daily]

I've been reading articles about how they lost because Mitt was too moderate.

Tack further right. 2016 will appreciate it.

If they trend further right, their party is done. As in, stick a fork in it, going the way of the Whigs, done.

 

[phrodeau]

Romney was the anti-wine, women and song candidate. Or the anti-sex, drugs and rock & roll candidate, if you prefer.

The economy isn't doing well. Americans need those things.

 

[KyleW]

If they trend further right, their party is done. As in, stick a fork in it, going the way of the Whigs, done.

I will probably never call that party done. It bounces back. Romney, GWB, what have you.

Plus where will all those voters go? Self identify as Tea Party?

 

[richard_daily]

I will probably never call that party done. It bounces back. Romney, GWB, what have you.

Plus where will all those voters go? Self identify as Tea Party?

The problem is, the tea party is where all of their momentum is coming from.

About 5 or 6% of the general population is controlling 100% of the republican party's direction.

The tea party is a wingnut branch of the republicans, but they're not a representation of even an 1/8th of the population.

I can see a potential fracture in the political process forming... and I for one am all for it. I think the end of the republican party would eventually mean a split in the democratic party, and potentially a lot of room for other parties, which is basically what they have in just about every other "free" country in the world.

 

[skate and fuck]

I dont know if that was supposed to spark heated debate, or be an 'across this line, no democrat will cross'mini-rant or what, and while I do give you some credit, Romney did make statements that everyone didnt agree with, regardless of political affiliation. Forget 'crossing lines', he drew lines that a president has no business crossing.
In the first debate Romney slaughtered Obama, Obama brought NO hope with him, and Romney only brought reality. It took the VP match to give Obama some confidence. Obama realized he didnt need tangible fact (the past 4yrs) to lend credibility to his 'hope and change' speeches, he just needed to repeat himself again. That was an interesting ad, the one of Obama saying the same speeches 4yrs ago compared to the ones he was giving now, the 08 vs '12 ones. The only 'change' seen is we are now almost insurmountably in debt, and we want to have a military presence like a 3rd world country, because that's the direction this country is heading in. Oh yeah, and bin laden is dead. Which isnt the victory that the president is making it, it took his leadership, a military power larger than a small country, ten years to accomplish killing one man. One man has had ten years to train a replacement, who knew his time was coming. TEN fucking years. The president is not responsible for all 10 of those years, but he's trying to make something that should be covered up by our military (the fact that it took 10yrs to kill one man) a shining badge of courage for himself.
Secondly, I did not agree with a lot of what Romney argued, but he is not this terrible disgusting polar opposite of Obama either. He had some ideas that were opposite, some of which were aa disgusting erosion of personal freedoms. But his economic ideas were better than Obama's, which are what this country needs right now. This country has it's own way of righting social wrongs, and it does so with fury and creativity and passion. President Reagan and Nixon almost single handedly inspired American Punk Rock. I think this country needs to get back on it's feet economically before it worries about social injustice. And people are forgetting something very important here, two things really:
1. When we have less real money than the Congo our social problems arent gonna mean shit.
2. Social inequality inspires some great music, art, literature, and thinking. Something this country is very due for.
Romney would have insured that both of those statements would have came true. I'm not saying who it'd be easier to live under, I'm not even saying the president does much, I'm just saying that this country heats up for like a month surrounding elections, and then turns into a bunch of politically apathetic trend followers the rest of the time. I'm not at all saying Romney was it, but I'm not saying Obama is the miracle everyone is deeming him to be either. I think and hope it's time for a large political shift.

 

[richard_daily]

I dont know if that was supposed to spark heated debate, or be an 'across this line, no democrat will cross'mini-rant or what, and while I do give you some credit, Romney did make statements that everyone didnt agree with, regardless of political affiliation. Forget 'crossing lines', he drew lines that a president has no business crossing.
In the first debate Romney slaughtered Obama, Obama brought NO hope with him, and Romney only brought reality. It took the VP match to give Obama some confidence. Obama realized he didnt need tangible fact (the past 4yrs) to lend credibility to his 'hope and change' speeches, he just needed to repeat himself again. That was an interesting ad, the one of Obama saying the same speeches 4yrs ago compared to the ones he was giving now, the 08 vs '12 ones. The only 'change' seen is we are now almost insurmountably in debt, and we want to have a military presence like a 3rd world country, because that's the direction this country is heading in. Oh yeah, and bin laden is dead. Which isnt the victory that the president is making it, it took his leadership, a military power larger than a small country, ten years to accomplish killing one man. One man has had ten years to train a replacement, who knew his time was coming. TEN fucking years. The president is not responsible for all 10 of those years, but he's trying to make something that should be covered up by our military (the fact that it took 10yrs to kill one man) a shining badge of courage for himself.
Secondly, I did not agree with a lot of what Romney argued, but he is not this terrible disgusting polar opposite of Obama either. He had some ideas that were opposite, some of which were aa disgusting erosion of personal freedoms. But his economic ideas were better than Obama's, which are what this country needs right now. This country has it's own way of righting social wrongs, and it does so with fury and creativity and passion. President Reagan and Nixon almost single handedly inspired American Punk Rock. I think this country needs to get back on it's feet economically before it worries about social injustice. And people are forgetting something very important here, two things really:
1. When we have less real money than the Congo our social problems arent gonna mean shit.
2. Social inequality inspires some great music, art, literature, and thinking. Something this country is very due for.
Romney would have insured that both of those statements would have came true. I'm not saying who it'd be easier to live under, I'm not even saying the president does much, I'm just saying that this country heats up for like a month surrounding elections, and then turns into a bunch of politically apathetic trend followers the rest of the time. I'm not at all saying Romney was it, but I'm not saying Obama is the miracle everyone is deeming him to be either. I think and hope it's time for a large political shift.

dude... "<p>" is your friend.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

2. Social inequality inspires some great music, art, literature, and thinking.

A self-serving conceit only people with enabled privilege share. Very similar to the "noble savage" bullshit. Like, if it weren't for slavery, black Americans could never have created the blues or some shit like that. Shit, there should be a million beat generation poets being birthed right now thanks to Hurricane Sandy wrecking and displacing people from their homes.

Love inspires great music, art, literature, thinking, etc. Not a guaranteed byproduct of some fucking grateful and stoic struggle through hard times and adversity.

 

[Liar]

A self-serving conceit only people with enabled privilege share. Very similar to the "noble savage" bullshit. Like, if it weren't for slavery, black Americans could never have created the blues or some shit like that. Shit, there should be a million beat generation poets being birthed right now thanks to Hurricane Sandy wrecking and displacing people from their homes.

Love inspires great music, art, literature, thinking, etc. Not a guaranteed byproduct of some fucking grateful and stoic struggle through hard times and adversity.

Oh, I would say hardship does indeed inspire great art.

Doesn't mean it's worth it.

 

[richard_daily]

A self-serving conceit only people with enabled privilege share. Very similar to the "noble savage" bullshit. Like, if it weren't for slavery, black Americans could never have created the blues or some shit like that. Shit, there should be a million beat generation poets being birthed right now thanks to Hurricane Sandy wrecking and displacing people from their homes.

Love inspires great music, art, literature, thinking, etc. Not a guaranteed byproduct of some fucking grateful and stoic struggle through hard times and adversity.

I couldn't even read all of that poorly formatted diatribe, but I agree with your response wholeheartedly.

Creativity can definitely flourish without suffering, especially when you're talking about someone else's suffering.

Fuck that.

 

[skate and fuck]

Underprivileged? Ive had the privilege of working construction, working in a mine, working in a mill, a foundry, working for a towtruck company and for a fishing outfitter/guide company. I was also in a 19day coma and privileged enough to relearn to walk, talk, and be in command (to an extent) of many high levels of functioning.

Some is luck, some is skill, and some is dealing with things (good and bad) in the best way you can. I will soon be in the process of becoming a speech therapist, and I'll write a piece of creative nonfiction about the events that lead to choosing my profession.

Feel free to rip that apart.

 

[JBCorbell]

The Republicans lost because they represent white, upper class, older Americans and those who aspire to be like them. They are personified in the public imagination as the loudmouthed, intolerant, ignorant Tea Party.

Is it any wonder that most people have run screaming from them?

 

[julybaby04]

The Republicans lost because they represent white, upper class, older Americans and those who aspire to be like them. They are personified in the public imagination as the loudmouthed, intolerant, ignorant Tea Party.

Is it any wonder that most people have run screaming from them?

....perhaps it is all in the public imagination as you stated.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Underprivileged? Ive had the privilege of working construction, working in a mine, working in a mill, a foundry, working for a towtruck company and for a fishing outfitter/guide company. I was also in a 19day coma and privileged enough to relearn to walk, talk, and be in command (to an extent) of many high levels of functioning.

Some is luck, some is skill, and some is dealing with things (good and bad) in the best way you can. I will soon be in the process of becoming a speech therapist, and I'll write a piece of creative nonfiction about the events that lead to choosing my profession.

Feel free to rip that apart.

That's a nice story. Has zilch to do with that conceited crap of creative nobility in struggle and pain, but it almost brought a tear to my eye.

Now if you'll excuse me, there's a few up-and-coming Van Goghs and Andrew Lloyd Webbers in Haiti I want to talk to. It seems those annual poverty-mongering earthquakes and typhoons just breed award-winning artists and playwrights down there!

 

[JBCorbell]

sorry, double.

 

[JBCorbell]

....perhaps it is all in the public imagination as you stated.

Ultimately perception is what counts. Reality comes second.

The thing is that the Tea Party is not only a Republican reality but the face of it. And that scares people. Particularly those who are not white, older, male, wealthy or crazy.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The American people simply did not want any Republican in the WH this year.

Except for the nearly half that voted for one.

There is only one "mandate" that qualifies as such in this country. That is the election won by a landslide. Otherwise "winners" would be more than a little wise to shut the fuck up.

 

[garbage can]

Except for the nearly half that voted for one.

There is only one "mandate" that qualifies as such in this country. That is the election won by a landslide. Otherwise "winners" would be more than a little wise to shut the fuck up.

*chuckling*

 

[warrior queen]

Except for the nearly half that voted for one.

There is only one "mandate" that qualifies as such in this country. That is the election won by a landslide. Otherwise "winners" would be more than a little wise to shut the fuck up.

I heard somewhere that only about half the registered voter in the US actually voted.
Meaning Obama won because a quarter of the voters wanted it so.

Is that correct?

 

[JBCorbell]

Except for the nearly half that voted for one.

There is only one "mandate" that qualifies as such in this country. That is the election won by a landslide. Otherwise "winners" would be more than a little wise to shut the fuck up.

Define landslide. There hasn't been a "landslide" since Reagan depending on your definition.

United States
Presidential

Presidential elections in the United States are indirect; they are not determined by the "popular vote", but by the Electoral College. Each state is allocated as many "electors" as it has Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress, and, at present, all states but Nebraska and Maine hold a "winner take all" vote, in which the winner of the popular vote in a state wins all electoral votes the state is eligible to cast (Nebraska and Maine give two electoral votes to the winner of the state and one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district within the state.). This allows for candidates to win 1 vote more than the runner-up but still get 100% of the electoral votes.

For this reason, many presidential victories appear to be huge landslide victories when examining the electoral vote, but much less so when examining the popular vote; for example, in the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan won 90.9% of the electoral vote but 50.7% of the popular vote to Jimmy Carter's 41.0%.

1920 - the greatest percentage point margin in the popular vote (Harding 60.3% to Cox 34.1%).
1936 - the greatest electoral votes difference between winner and opponent (Roosevelt 523 to Landon 8).
1808 - the highest percentage for winner (James Madison 64.7%).
1984 - the highest number of electoral votes (Reagan 525).
1789 and 1792 - the highest percentage of Electoral College Votes (100% - George Washington was the only president to win a unanimous Electoral College victory. Washington received the maximum possible electoral votes in both the 1789 and 1792 election.)[7]

Popular votes

Lyndon Johnson's 61.1% to Barry Goldwater's 38.5% in the 1964 presidential election
Franklin D. Roosevelt's 60.8% to Alf Landon's 36.5% in the 1936 presidential election
Richard Nixon's 60.7% to George McGovern's 37.5% in the 1972 presidential election
Warren Harding's 60.3% to James M. Cox's 34.1% in the 1920 presidential election
Ronald Reagan's 58.8% to Walter Mondale's 40.6% in the 1984 presidential election
Theodore Roosevelt's 56.4% to Alton B. Parker's 37.6% in the 1904 presidential election

Electoral votes

James Monroe's 231 electoral votes to John Quincy Adams's 1 electoral vote in 1820. (99.2% margin)
Franklin D. Roosevelt's 523 electoral votes to Alf Landon's 8 electoral votes in 1936. (97% margin)
Ronald Reagan's 525 electoral votes to Walter Mondale's 13 electoral votes in 1984. (95.2% margin)
Richard Nixon's 520 electoral votes to George McGovern's 17 electoral votes and John Hospers's 1 in 1972. (93.3% margin)

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I heard somewhere that only about half the registered voter in the US actually voted.
Meaning Obama won because a quarter of the voters wanted it so.

Is that correct?

I don't know the exact figures, but, yeah, that's pretty close. And the worse news is that such lack of participation is fairly common from election to election.

 

[garbage can]

I heard somewhere that only about half the registered voter in the US actually voted.
Meaning Obama won because a quarter of the voters wanted it so.

Is that correct?

WQ, seems like you're pretty close.

 

[julybaby04]

Ultimately perception is what counts. Reality comes second.

The thing is that the Tea Party is not only a Republican reality but the face of it. And that scares people. Particularly those who are not white, older, male, wealthy or crazy.

Perhaps perception is what matters.

Do remember, however, the democratic party has a "face" as well.....and even though the majority chose to re-elect, there were almost half who ran from that face.

There are two completely opposed points of view. In that are personal beliefs (on both sides) that make up to the core who those people are.

I would imagine neither side has any desire to change.

So, that is probably more of what the reality is. How does the country work together when split in half? I would imagine the person/party that can bring the divide together will have the support of most of the people.

Romney did not, and Obama most certainly does not.

 

[JBCorbell]

Perhaps perception is what matters.

Do remember, however, the democratic party has a "face" as well.....and even though the majority chose to re-elect, there were almost half who ran from that face.

There are two completely opposed points of view. In that are personal beliefs (on both sides) that make up to the core who those people are.

I would imagine neither side has any desire to change.

So, that is probably more of what the reality is. How does the country work together when split in half? I would imagine the person/party that can bring the divide together will have the support of most of the people.

Romney did not, and Obama most certainly does not.

A big problem is that your political system and thought patterns automatically reject the idea of a third party solution. Given the intransigence to change in the ruling parties, I see no possibility of change in the foreseeable future.